Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Jaya Venkata Bharathi Filling Station

DRT10 Apr 2026OA/162/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India against three defendants for recovery of a stressed asset loan of Rs.33.51 Lakhs. The court held that the claim was substantiated and granted permission to proceed against mortgaged properties and persons.

What did the court decide?

Directing Defendants to pay Rs.33.51 Lakhs with interest; permission to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Jaya Venkata Bharathi Filling… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - IAT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE loth DAY OF APRIL,2026

¶2

PRESENT: SR! GUMMADI cOPICHAND, PRES|DtNG OFFICER

¶3

OA. No. 162 OF 2026

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch -1, 2Nd F|oor, TS RTC

¶6

Bus Terminal Complex (Commuter Amenity Center), Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095

¶7

Representated by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Jaya Venkata Bharathi Filling Station, Represented by its Proprietor,

¶11

Sri Yerra Srinivasa Rao,

¶12

Male, Major,

¶13

Sy.No.513/2Bl3/3,

¶14

Akupamula, Suryapet District TS - 508 233,

¶15

Sri. Yerra Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Yerra Venkata Narayan, Major, Male,

¶16

R/o. H.No.6-66,

¶17

Boddrai Bazar, Kodad, Suryapet - 508 206. 6ry B^lo/lP|/f,./ Ij W-w#

¶18

(oA. No. 16212026)

¶19

3.Sri.Yerra ChandraSekhar,
S/o.YerraVenkataNarayan, Major, Male,
R/o.H.No.6-66, BoddraiBazar,
Kodad, Suryapet-508 206.		Defendants
Counsel fortheparties:
For TheApplicant	P.V. Satyanarayana
FortheDefendant	Exparte
Reservedon	07.04.2026
Pronouncedon	10.04.2026
Uploadinwebsiteon	10.04.2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1.
The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for
recovery of a total sum of Rs.33,51,429.00 ps. (Rupees Thirty
Three Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty
Nine Only) with future interest @ 19.25% p.a with monthly rests
from the ication till the date of realization and in
defau ed Property as mentioned in the
10APeM6 *,
i; 1=' !*I r'1 ' - n'rr (lr(u hr2
i%-W,d"#
'.-a:Yllry

¶22

(OA. No. 16212026)

¶23

¶24

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant no.1 is the^{proprietorship} firm represented by its Proprietor Defendant No. 2 along with Defendant No.3 availed cash credit loan limit of Rs.52.00 Lakhs with interest @19.25%^{p.a with} monthly rests and executed Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 16.09.2023 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants No. 2 and 3 stood as a guarantor and executed as Guarantee Agreement dated 16.09.2023 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendants created equitable mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule of property to OA and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 16.09.2023 and the defendants deposited Sale Deed in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 16.03.2025 and issued Demand notice dated 17.03.2025 under Section t3(2) of the SARFAEST Act, 2002 and Legal Notice dated 14.01.2026 to the Defendants. lnspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶25

absent and set exparte on 07.04.2026.

¶26

ffi
€$
;; M*

¶27

(OA. No. 16212026)

¶28

Sri. Ajit Singh^yadav, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A. 1 to A.1 1 .

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶30

b. The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶31

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiat of the Appticant Bank was examined and she exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A.1 to A.11. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶32

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under :

¶33

The Defendants No. 1 to 3 are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.33,51,42g.00 ps. (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred Nine Only) with future interest @ 19.2sofilw of this application till the date of real 10 trpn rfnl flf t A-i .i,

¶34

(oA. No. 16212026)

¶35

9' The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the Mortgaged Property mentioned in the Schedule of property to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of Defendants No. 2 and 3 and properties of Defendant No.1 Firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

That Applicant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the OA.

¶38

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶39

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶40

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, conected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1Oh day of Apr, 2026)

¶42

l"d<br>;;#
1
:,
.*d

¶43

sd/-
(G. coPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

rvw:

¶45

!"rnI-r, l{Yo5Pl8AO.

State Bank of India v. M/S. Jaya Venkata Bharathi Filling Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Jaya Venkata Bharathi Filling Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mekala Balraj versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S.Sarojini Textiles

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sanjana Powerlooms Industry

Mr.Venugopal Reddy Gaddam and another versus South Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Mr. Srinivas Reddy Daama

State Bank of India versus Mr. Tera Karunakar Reddy